John Venables the C***

James Bulger’s killer Jon Venables has been sentenced to 40 months in prison after pleading guilty to having more than 1,000 indecent images of abused children in his possession.
What’s the betting when this vile piece of * gets out again, you & me & the rest of the taxpayers will foot the bill for yet another new identity & nice cosy place for him to live.
Needs dropping off in Liverpool 8 with a sign around his neck saying who he is.

 

The judge seems to have tried to do the best he can within the law & laid the base for his future attempts at freedom.


Judge's blistering statement in full before he jailed James Bulger killer Jon Venables over child abuse images
Mr Justice Edis branded Venables, 35, "manipulative, persistent and dishonest" before throwing him behind bars for three years and four months

• Joshua Taylor
  • 15:54, 7 FEB 2018
  NEWS
  
  
  CLICK TO PLAY
  WHAT HAPPENED TO JAMES BULGER? THE HORRIFIC MURDER THAT SHOCKED THE WORLD
  
  
  • today admitted having 392 category A images , 148 category B images and 630 category C images - mainly children aged six to 13 but some were younger.
    
    Sentencing him on Wednesday at the Old Bailey, Mr Justice Edis said the latest images were "vile" and "heartbreaking", adding that many showed abuse of young boys like James.
    
    James was kidnapped, tortured and killed by Venables and Robert Thompson, who was also 10, in February 1993.
    
    Here are Mr Justice Edis's full withering remarks as he jailed Venables for 40 months...
    
    
    
    James's mum Denise was in court to hear Venables' case (Image: PA)
    
    
    The killer has been jailed for three years and four months (Image: Getty)
    * behind bars, cocaine and The Dark Web - the depraved secret life of child killer Jon Venables revealed
  "The victim surcharge applies. I make a deprivation order for the laptop computer.
  
  "I make a sexual harm prevention order with the prohibitions set out in the order because those terms are necessary for protecting the public from sexual harm from you. That order will last indefinitely, that is to say until (if ever) the court discharges it.
  
  "You have been convicted of a sexual offence to which the Sexual Offences Act 2003 applies, and I certify that fact. You will therefore be subject to the notification requirements of that Act for an indefinite period.
  
  "The offences of which you have been convicted are such that you may be barred under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006.
  
  "Jon Venables, you have pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity to three counts of making indecent photographs of children contrary to s.1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978, counts 1-3 on the Indictment, and one offence of possession of a paedophile manual contrary to s. 69(1) of the Serious Crime Act 2015, count 4 on the Indictment.
  
  "The relevant guideline suggests a sentence before plea discount of 12 months, or, after discount for the plea of guilty, eight months. The sentence I am about to impose will be much longer than that, but must remain proportionate to the offences with which I am dealing.
  
  "This case is unique because when you were 10 years old you took part in the brutal murder and torture of James Bulger. That was a crime which revolted a nation and which continues to do so, even after the 25 years which have passed since it happened. He was two-years old.
  
  
  
  The court heard Venables had a sexual interest in children (Image: Press Association)
  
  
  Mr Justice Edis passed sentence at the Old Bailey (Image: Getty)
  Mother and child who fleetingly held 'sobbing' James Bulger's hand before he was dragged away by killers revealed in harrowing documentary

"The facts of what you did are notorious and there is no need for me to repeat them here. From all that I know about James' parents it is clear that you not only took his young life, but have also devastated theirs.

"You received a life sentence for that crime, and after serving about eight years you were released subject to licence. That licence lasts for life, and there are conditions attached to it. Breach of the conditions means that you can be recalled to serve a further indefinite period of imprisonment under the terms of the life sentence.

"The commission of criminal offences while on licence is a breach of the licence and you have now been convicted on two occasions since your first release. This is the second of those convictions. In 2010 you were convicted for the first time of similar offences to those which are before me, and received a sentence of two years' imprisonment.

"Although entitled to release after half of that sentence, 12 months, you were detained until 2013 under the terms of the original life sentence. The immediate effect of the licence today is that you will not get credit for the time spent in custody awaiting today, and, more importantly, that there is no guarantee that you will be released when you have served the sentence I shall pass shortly.

"The Parole Board is the body which has responsibility for deciding when you will actually be released in this case.

"What I have to decide is what punishment is appropriate for these offences. In that respect I am required to follow a guideline unless it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.



Venables killed James, two, alongside pal Robert Thompson (Image: Daily Mirror)
James Bulger's mum says Jon Venables 'will think he's got away with it' after being jailed over child abuse pictures
"Because the legal language of the offences has a technical meaning I wish to explain exactly what you have been convicted of. You have pleaded guilty to "making" the images listed in counts 1-3. This means that you downloaded them from the internet for your own gratification. You did not yourself create the images and you were not present when someone else did that. You did not intend to distribute or sell them.

"The point about child * is that it involves films and images being made of very serious sexual offences being committed against defenceless children. It is heart breaking for any ordinary person to see this kind of material.

"The consumer of it, you, therefore does two things. First, he emerges as a threat to children from real harm caused by his own offences against them. A person with a perverted sexual interest in children plainly poses a higher risk than one without.

"Secondly, by being a consumer of this dreadful material he causes others to make it and thereby promotes the commission of very serious and damaging offences by others. These are the reasons why the offence is regarded so seriously.

"There were 1170 images, and moving images were included. 392 were in category A which is the most serious class of image. These include multiple images and films of penetration of children and also some images where the young victim appears to be in physical pain. Some of them were babies.

"Given your history, it is significant that a number of the images and films were of serious crimes inflicted on male toddlers.



The killers were caught on CCTV leading James to his death
Is Denise Fergus married? James Bulger's mother's quest for justice after separating from his dad amid suicidal thoughts
"You did this using a browser called "TOR" which allows anonymous browsing on the internet and access to what is called the dark web. It was designed to enable you to obtain these images without being detected.

"In addition, you had a paedophile manual, which you acquired in the same way. This is a vile document which gives detailed instructions on how to have * with small children, as it puts it, "safely".

"The use of that word in that document reveals the cynical brutality of its author. This manual was created by someone with some detailed anatomical knowledge and is designed to encourage its readers to perpetrate the most serious sexual offences against very small children. It is a direct incitement to do this.

"Although the maximum sentence for this offence is far lower than the maximum penalty for the other three offences, it is, in my judgment, no less serious.

"Offences contrary to s.1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 are specified offences and the court should consider whether an extended sentence should be imposed.

"Is there a significant risk of serious harm to the public from the commission by you of further specified offences? I accept that downloading images for private viewing does not directly cause serious harm to the public.

"The existence of a market for this kind of depravity undoubtedly causes serious offences to be committed by others against children so that the images can be created. This does cause children all over the world to be seriously harmed.

"That dreadful fact does not appear to trouble your conscience at all. As a consumer of the products of this barbarous evil, you, along with many others, indirectly cause it to happen.

"The commission of these offences and the possession of the manual suggest that you have a compulsive interest in serious sexual crime against small children.

"The possession of the manual also suggests that you were at least contemplating the possibility of moving on to what are called "contact offences", that is actual sexual crime against children.



The toddler was tortured before his body was dumped on a railway line (Image: Reuters)
Jon Venables' lawyer claims child killer "still has capacity for good and change" and society 'shouldn't give up on him'
"This is against a background where you know the very substantial penalties you face if you are caught. The incentive for you to live a quiet a law abiding life out of the public eye does not just come from penalties imposed by the criminal justice system, which is why there is an injunction in place to protect your life.

"You took a very great risk when you committed these offences and this suggests to me a compulsive desire which you could not control. You did this on a day when you were undergoing assessment in the contact of your life licence. This shows how manipulative and dishonest you are.

"There is no evidence that you have ever actually embarked on the commission of any contact offence. There is no evidence of grooming or, in this set of material, of you having been in contact with other men with a view to gaining access to children.

"The pre-sentence report was prepared by someone who has had significant dealings with you. Its author concludes that you present a high risk of serious harm to children.

"It is agreed that the threshold for an extended sentence is met but submitted on both sides that the question is academic since the extended period of licence would add nothing to the powers which the Parole Board already has and will have for the rest of your life because of the life sentence.

"I conclude that the risk you pose to the public is fully addressed by the fact that you are subject to a life sentence. That is a far more potent long term protection for the public than anything I can do today.

"I have read a pre-sentence report which contains information which, in conjunction with this conviction and sentence, will cause the Parole Board to examine the case when considering release with particular care. I have referred to the opinion of its author already, which will be part of the material on which any release decision will be made.

"Any evidence at all that you had turned your attention to any children in what I shall call "the real world" would, of course, change this assessment and would probably also result in additional offences being charged with more extensive sentencing powers available.

"The relevant guideline suggests a starting point of one year with a range going up to three years. However, the paedophile manual requires an uplift as do the previous convictions in 2010 for offending of this kind.

"It is a different kind of thing from the images and films because its purpose is to inspire actual offending. It is probably not designed to excite or to achieve sexual gratification simply by being looked at, but to give practical advice. It is extremely important that possession of this kind of thing should be clearly punished and I consider that a consecutive term is required.



The case was heard at the Old Bailey in London (Image: PA Archive)
James Bulger's baby-voiced killers: Shocking interview tapes of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson describe their parts in toddler's brutal murder
"Further, there are aggravating features as identified in the guideline. The offences were committed whilst on licence and in breach of a number of the terms of that licence. For the reasons I have stated already, this is a particularly serious aggravating feature in this case.

"Your breach of licence was manipulative, persistent and dishonest as well as seriously criminal in itself. The children depicted were often very young and vulnerable, there is discernible pain and distress suffered by some of the children depicted and the collection includes moving images.

"The number of images is substantial, though much larger collections are routinely encountered in these cases. The proportion of category A images, almost exactly one third, suggests deliberate searching for and collection of this most repulsive material. In doing that, you accessed the dark web.

"For these reasons the sentence can properly be increased into the next category range within the guideline, which is usually reserved for offences involving distribution of images of this kind. This involves following the guideline by using its ranges, but by doing so flexibly when confronted with a wholly exceptional case such as this.

"There is very limited mitigation apart from the plea for which you will receive full credit following the guideline. It is true that you were immediately candid with the police when arrested, but, as is common in this type of case, you did not have much choice. Your difficulties in living in the community are obvious, but you do not have the mitigation that you only offended on one day. Your offending went back some months and required ingenuity to keep it hidden.

"The offending is so serious that only an immediate custodial sentence will suffice. That sentence must be above the usual range in the guideline to which I have just referred for the reasons I have given. But for your pleas the total sentence would have been five years. Giving you full credit of one third for those pleas as I am required to do, the sentence on you is as follows: count 1: 32 months; count 2: 2 years; count 3: 18 months; count 4: 8 months, consecutive.

"This makes a total term of 40 months. At the half way point of this sentence you will be released from this sentence. Whether you will actually be released from prison at that point depends on what action is taken in relation to your life sentence."

 

Just lock the sick * up forever.

 

Just lock him up for as long as it takes in amongst your average inmate block and have someone "leak" his identity with undeniable proof.

 

There's recent pictures and his changed name kicking about on Facebook

 

Heartbreaking reading that again. You can still see the pain etched on little James’ mums face. Bless her.

 

Never sure about these things, people have been wrongly accused of being him through social media and had there own lives ruined as a result, Happened to a dad a good few years back.

 

That was my first thought when l seen it.....could be anyone's photo.....never forward any of that * on anyway

 

Just read the judges comments up above.

This * had a "peadophile manual" instructing them how to have "safe" * with a wean?

Jesus * christ man, these disgusting, vile, creepy, deviant, sadistic, crazy * need nothing more than * flung in to a locked room with the parents of their victims and kicked the * out of until they no longer breathing.

I am * appalled t reading that!

Dirty, dirty villainous *!!!

I wouldn't bat an eyelid if this fuckpig was hunted down and skinned alive.

 

Just ‘disappear’ him. Would be so easy.

 

Had heard and seen bits of this as well. Don't know how much truth there is to these things. Due to the anonymity clause there's always going to be speculation and hearsay as to who he is today.

Given his offence, I don't see why he should still be covered by anonymity. His crime as a 10 year old kid, while it might not be universally agreed on, I get. But his crimes since then should be knowledge of the public same as any other child molester or paedophile who is charged. Whether it be by his real or new name, it should be public knowledge the same as any other criminal.

 

Why can't they name this * and get his picture over the news?

Sickening.

 

The Justice system is a contradiction in terms..

Offences against the person sentencing far too lenient, our most vulnerable aren’t protected.

Steal from the rich or the state tho...

 

As said the judge seems to have done what he can, hopefully the parole board never let the * out.

The sooner they work out how to monitor the dark web and track those on it the * better and if that upsets anyone tough.

 

just drag the * to a hole now , shut the door and forget it .

 

I simply don’t understand this ‘Dark Web’ thing. How can it not be monitored?

 

How’s this * deserve any kinda protection through a new identity he’s no a child anymore and has been caught as a paedo twice now and still gets to live a life as some normal criminal, make his name public n let him be dealt with in jail

 

It is..